past lives/reincarnation

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: past lives/reincarnation

Postby Webwanderer » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:08 am

My reference was not people in control. It was to the presumed experts. Don't get me wrong, some have value. Just not as the last word, only input.
epiphany55 wrote:You are right to accent 'authorities', but it seems as if you're suggesting that I see them as authorities, which I do not. I see them as experts in their respective fields in the same way I see an architect as an expert in theirs.

This is from Mirriam Webster:
Full Definition of AUTHORITY

a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn
b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : testimony
c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior
b : freedom granted by one in authority : right
a : persons in command; specifically : government
b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>

User avatar
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: past lives/reincarnation

Postby Randomizer » Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:44 am

someone12 wrote:I am really confused, I do not see Krishna's words as a metaphor that was misinterpreted, when he talks about it in the Bhagavad Gita, it looks very clear and direct to me, not a metaphor pointing to something else. Also Buddha remembered all his past lives, as a monkey or as human... where is the metaphor? What they actually mean then?

I can answer this in a very objective/academic manner, having studied the Gita due to my Indian heritage.

First some background: Gita is part of the Hindu epic "Mahabharata" which was written by Ved Vyasa (an honorific title he earned by dividing the Vedas -- which were just one earlier). Ved Vyasa's original name was Krishna Dwaipayana (the word Krishna means "Dark" and Ved Vyasa was dark of color). I claim the Gita was composed/designed/engineered to deliver an everlasting message, and there was no real Lord Krishna in the form that is suggested by many believers.
    1. The placement of the Gita: and its subject of a war within a man's heart, just before the man is about to fight the war of his life (The Mahabharata war),
    2. The Mahabharata's reoccurring theme of "disqualification of the eldest": from the beginning to the end, this is the case
    3. A small discrepancy between Mahabharata and Vishnu Purana (which was also composed by Ved Vyasa): when Lord Krishna apparently broke his vow to never lift a weapon, is described differently in both epics. With deeper investigation, you'll realize this discrepancy is actually a major chink in the armor of anyone who believes the epics were narrated accurately generation after generation

Arjun and Krishna: Nar (word for human/man) and Narayan (word for God/Vishnu): The Gita is designed as a play in which Arjuna is attempting to win the battle in his heart and Lord Krishna is actually his soul speaking to him. The book is designed in a way to instil faith in the heart of the reader, the same way cows are designated holy to protect them in India (because the Indian cow is more useful alive than dead, read the book: Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches for more on this). Gita is actually a condensed summary of Vedas (smriti: knowledge gained from experience) and Upanishads (shruti: knowledge gained through divine intervention). If you read the Gita from the point of view of a man questioning his soul, you'll see that it explains everything. Lord Krishna, if Arjuna's soul, is indeed God as consistent with the Hindu philosophy (Who is Brahma? That is me. The soul manifested itself as what it really is, The Vishwarupa.

Ved Vyasa's signature on Gita: In Gita Chapter 10, verse 37, "Lord Krishna" says the following:

I am Krishna among my mighty kinsmen;
I am Arjuna among the Pandava princes;
I am the epic poet Vyasa among sages,
the inspired singer among bards.

Therefore, I claim the Gita is not about a divine God educating mankind on what is the right way to live, but simply Ved Vyasa's effort to simplify the Vedic knowledge of Consciousness and Yoga in a form that is going to be easy to understand, and he made sure the placement of the book (along with vivid description of Lord Krishna as an incarnation of God) within the Mahabharata will make sure the knowledge is not lost easily.

Now to answer your question, read chapter 2, verse 16. It says:

Nothing of nonbeing comes to be,
nor does being cease to exist;
the boundary between these two
is seen by men who see reality.

I personally take this as explanation of what it means to "reincarnate". We exist, because we existed in another form elsewhere at another time, and for the same reason, we will continue to exist. The world is just a projection of laws of nature/forces of nature/God:

Chapter 2, verse 6:
Just as the wide-moving wind
is constantly present in space,
so all creatures exist in me;
understand it to be so!

Hope some of this helps. I can go on and on, but its tough to compose a half intelligent and coherent reply in just a few minutes!
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:10 am

Re: past lives/reincarnation

Postby tod » Mon Jun 15, 2015 12:47 am

Hi TD.

TemporalDissonance wrote:
epiphany55 wrote:
E2B wrote: Understand that perception is the key to experience. Meaning, if you view these experiences as merely 'imagination' of the experiencer, then that will be your own perspective and as a result, your own experience going forward. It's neither right nor wrong. It merely just is. Yet, only you can know personally if you are allowing yourself to explore this material with an objective focus or if you are limiting yourself by a previous bias (coloring of your perspective) based in materialism, when you do explore this material.

I don't trust the mind's colouring of experience, especially when those experiences appear to transcend our existing perception of reality. That's the best way I can explain it. Now you may say that through practice one can have a purer experience without the distortion of mind, and therefore this experience could be a more reliable representation of reality. But it is not the experience I question. It is how we then inevitably use the mind to explain and validate these experiences that I just cannot trust. As soon as we start to reflect upon and recall our experiences, we are subject to all manner of mind-made distortions influenced by cultural conditioning and comforting fancification.

epiphany55, I find what you said above very intriguing. There are a few assumptions I am curious about myself:

A) That aside from the "mind", there isn't any form/mechanism of understanding that is beyond our "minds", which exists even when we experience transcending experiences outside of our "minds". I am curious if anyone else have insight into this.

B) That your perception about the mind's colouring of experience isn't itself a condition of mind-made distortions already?

There is actual experience (consciousness or mind), and the content of thought (human consciousness or human mind).

Experience can be thought to be physical or nonphysical, and that is a division applied by human mind, not by consciousness (mind).

Consciousness is undertanding in that the more that thought is conscious, ie focuses on, or stays in or as, actual experience (rather than thought about it), the more 'what is going on' is perceived.
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: New Zealand


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest